AUSTIN  Gov. Rick Perry, who may face a re-election challenge from within his party next year, plans to headline a Capitol rally next weekend on an issue of importance to GOP primary voters  abortion.

"Join pro-life Texas Gov. Rick Perry!" says a Web posting by the Texas Alliance for Life touting next Saturday's Texas Rally for Life.

"We've been putting it (the rally) on for about 15 years. This is the first time a governor has appeared. We're just ecstatic about that," said the alliance's Joe Pojman.

Pojman is among conservatives whose endorsements have been touted by Perry, who may face a challenge in next year's GOP primary from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn. Neither has announced.

The group invited Perry because his track record showed "this was something he was very interested in," Pojman said, and because it's a way to highlight abortion legislation that if passed by lawmakers will go to Perry for consideration.

Perry "is currently and always has been very strong on the life issue," Pojman said.

Pojman said the possibly contested primary was a consideration: "I thought we'd give him an opportunity to speak to a big part of his constituency that participates in the primary."

Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said by e-mail that the governor "has spoken to pro-life groups in years past" and that he over the years "has taken a consistent stand in advocating for the protection of human life."

Perry opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the pregnant woman's life is in danger. Strayhorn holds the same position.

Hutchison supports allowing a woman to make a choice about abortion until the unborn baby is viable outside the womb but supports states' ability to impose restrictions such as parental consent or notification for minors.

"His position is unchanged. You always evaluate appearances based on what's going on. If he is likely to face a primary opponent, it is a smart appearance. It's smart politics for him," said lobbyist and consultant Bill Miller. "In a Republican primary, the right-to-life faction is strong and active and they participate in a big way."

Republican consultant Royal Masset said, "It's a core issue. The abortion issue is 10 to 100 times more potent than even, say, the gay marriage issue."

In this legislative session, Pojman lists as a top priority a push to require parental consent before an underage girl can have a pregnancy terminated.

The move is one that Perry supports, although not all abortion opponents agree it is needed. Current law requires that parents be notified, but not that they give their consent.

Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, plans to file a bill to require parental consent and also plans to appear at next weekend's rally.

A Perry supporter, King said that in the GOP primary, the issue of abortion "has always been a very important issue. It's not the only issue. And you've got a number of people in the Republican Party it's not a big issue to at all." pfikac@express-news.net

I'm proud of the Governor's willingness to stand with us for the protection of human life. We can use the opportunity for loving education and persuasion of any who do not agree with us as to the need to protect all human life and the life of all children of human beings.

(Disclaimer: I'm on the Board of Directors of a couple of the sponsoring organizations).

Interesting. Presumably he's making this announcement now not only because he believes in the pro-life position but because he thinks (as I do) that it's a WINNING ISSUE.

I have followed with interest comments from Texas Freepers on the other two possible candidates mentioned. Strayhorn appears to be a loose cannon. Kay Bailey Hutchinson appear to have considerable approval. But I am bothered by this statement in the article, if, as it seems, it is true:

Hutchison supports allowing a woman to make a choice about abortion until the unborn baby is viable outside the womb but supports states' ability to impose restrictions such as parental consent or notification for minors.

Say, what? This statement seems to say that there is a universal, presumably constitutional, right to abort babies right up to the time of viability. Maybe the first six or seven months of pregnancy, maybe even eight or nine if interpreted liberally (as it would be), and that the state should only be permitted to put parental consent or notification restrictions on that right.

That's a huge exception. I don't see how any pro-lifers could possibly support her candidacy if this is true. Keep in mind the history of another Texas lady, Sandra Day O'Connor, who seemed to be reasonably conservative but who has proven to be a flaming liberal on the Supreme Court, strongly favoring abortion, a fundamental right to sodomy, and the use of foreign laws as precedents for SCOTUS decisions. We don't need any more of that in the future.

P.S. If the governor is announcing his strongly pro-life position now because he thinks that's the winning position to take, more power to him.

In fact, I'm delighted. If the voters and the politicians can be persuaded that the right to life is a political winner, so much the better. For too long the media and the liberals have tried to persuade us otherwise. Some voters vote their consciences, others like to be on the winning side. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be on the winning side if your cause is just.

Say, what? This statement seems to say that there is a universal, presumably constitutional, right to abort babies right up to the time of viability. Maybe the first six or seven months of pregnancy, maybe even eight or nine if interpreted liberally (as it would be), and that the state should only be permitted to put parental consent or notification restrictions on that right.

Not being argumentative or even justifying KBH's position, but is there that much variation in the definition of viability? I've heard that viability is typically considered to be about 21-22 weeks.

12
posted on 01/15/2005 11:01:02 AM PST
by Akira
(Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other.)

Look at it this way, if Hutchison does run, she will likely be replaced by a pro-life conservative (Congressman Henry Bonilla, hopefully). And Senators have more influence over the issue of abortion and life than governors do.

Senator Hutchinson signed on with Specter, Kennedy and Feinstein in asking the President and in sponsoring a Bill in the Senate to allow funding for embryonic stem cells and (supposedly) a cloning ban (Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)S 303) as long as the embryo is destroyed after 14 days.

Last summer, the Senator also gave an interview to reporters after her speech at the Texas Republican State Convention reassuring them that she supported "the right" to an abortion until viability.

Senator Hutchinson has done well to vote on the pro-life side, except for her vote to affirm Roe v Wade as the law of the land in the middle of the Partial Birth Abortion ban debates in the Senate and a vote that would have allowed abortions on military bases. I do wish that she could see how these votes and the push for cloning of human embryos that would then be killed and her comments to the reporters last summer is harmful to the inalienable right not to be killed of all human beings.

Besides, what a way to make herself stand out as a leader in the Senate -- as a prolife leader!

15
posted on 01/15/2005 12:01:42 PM PST
by hocndoc
(Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)

Perry will have been Governor for 6 years, he'd only normally be governor for 8, why doesn't he just let Huchison be Governor, and run for her Senate seat? It's more important that Senators be pro-life then governors anyway.

It is very significant that the Governor's position is not "for the *health* of the mother. It is to save the life of the mother.

Don't you believe in self-defense?

Personally, I don't believe that any but the 3rd reason is justifiable. The only reason to kill a human is in defense of life. (Even that statement is a very simplified version of thousands of years of philosophy.).

17
posted on 01/15/2005 12:09:32 PM PST
by hocndoc
(Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)

The issues are evidently pretty fancy national politics, the power of seniority, and even a concern about the effects of the primary on the actual election of a Republican Senator.

I also like Attorney General Abbot and Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst for Senate candidates.

I *would* like to see a pro-life woman step up to the task of teaching our nation about the sanctity of life and the right of all our children, as well as our brothers and sisters who can hire lawyers, *not to be intentionally killed.*

18
posted on 01/15/2005 12:14:14 PM PST
by hocndoc
(Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)

It would depend on whether you were talking about viability in cases where you take extraordinary measures. I don't know how meaningful it would be to expect someone seeking an abortion to take extraordinary measures to preserve a premature child's life. As it is now, however, with a lot of late term abortions the aborted child accidentally survives, maybe with an arm or a leg cut off, and in many hospitals the custom has then been to set the baby aside until it conveniently dies by thirst, starvation, or exposure, and can be disposed of.

Rape, life of the mother, and incest also could be large loopholes, depending on what the politician's real attitudes are. That was how George Bush described himself during his first campaign, but in office he has been pretty forcefully pro-life, from the very first day.

Life of the mother is very different from health of the mother, if that is really the guideline being followed. I agree with those who argue that abortion is wrong in the case of rape and incest--because in what way is the baby at fault for what was done by others? Why should he be killed? If the mother understandably couldn't deal with the trauma, then the baby could be offered for adoption.

There are no terms limits for any constitutional offices in TX. It is just a coincidence that few have ever served more than six years in the governorship. John B. Connally, Jr., the most successful in terms of state governance of modern TX governors, stepped down after three two-year terms.

Texans need to be very, very careful. Thanks in part to tacit support from the President, we now have a pro-abortion U.S. Senator (probably Senator-for-Life) from Georgia. I would hate to see Texans saddled with a pro-abortion governor, who could do even more harm.

Actually, a Catholic theological analysis of the life of the mother exception would be that the baby was unavoidably killed as a side-effect of saving the mother. That might be the case, for example, in an ectopic pregnancy.

Similarly, it would be illegitimate in traditional Catholic teaching for a married person to have an operation explicitly intended to render him or her sterile, in order to avoid having children while enjoying carefree sex; but it would be perfectly legitimate to have such an operation if necessary to remove a cancer, even though it had the further side effect of rendering the person sterile.

As another example, it would be wrong to remove your arm because you thought you looked better without it, but it would be legitimate to remove it because it was incurably infected with gangrene, so as to save your life.

Perhaps to some this sounds like hair-splitting, but I believe it's the right way to approach such questions.

"Perry opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the pregnant woman's life is in danger. Strayhorn holds the same position."

"Hutchison supports allowing a woman to make a choice about abortion until the unborn baby is viable outside the womb."

While I'm happy that Perry is somewhat involved in the movement, he is wrong about the exceptions. Each child is God's precious infant, why should the child suffer because of the sin of one of its parents? If the mother can't love her child because of rape or incest, adoption would be the best alternative. The child is also proof that the rape or incest took place, and a means of putting the perpetrator in jail. While the child is not viable at 10 weeks, it is fully formed from their toes to the hair on their head, the baby sucks its thumb, sleeps, dreams, moves around AND feels pain. The child is a child at conception, not at viability. The only time an abortion is morally acceptable, is if the mother's life is in danger, but this was the case even before Roe v. Wade.

I discussed the "exceptions" in this post http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320881/posts?page=48#48The baby is her baby. He or she is just as much a possessor of the inalienable right not to be killed as she is. If the infant does not have the right not to be killed - an inalienable right not dependent on any circumstances - then how to justify the right not to be killed of any unborn child???

[The next bit sounds very unemotional and clinical, but that's the only way I can contemplate this question, by attempting to be "clinical." I base my discussion on comments by Gilbert Meilander in his book "Christian Bioethics, a Primer." I'm still opposed to the finality, the irreversibility of death and am convinced that we humans are more adaptable and able to survive horrible circumstances as long as there is life.]

The only exception would be is when a woman considers the pregnancy a continuation of the assault. This might happen in cases where the woman perceived that her life was actually at risk during the rape. Consider a woman beaten or injured, or one who is held at gunpoint, or one who is believes that she has been exposed to HIV. There are also the women who are truly endangered by pregnancy. And the ones whose husbands can't bear the fact that she has been raped, much less that she is carrying the rapist's child.

Back to what *I* believe: I'm afraid that the reason for the exception for rape is actually a response to those who want to forget that she was raped, possibly, especially, her husband and father. In the days where women belonged to their husbands or fathers (and in the parts of the world where this is true), the male reaction is to kill the child of the rapist who stole "their" property - the woman's sex, fertility, and offspring.

34
posted on 01/17/2005 8:12:56 PM PST
by hocndoc
(Choice is the # 1 killer in the US)

Thanks for your response. Rape is a sticky subject to say the least. But, for pro-lifers like ourselves, I feel there is no room to bend. Research after research is showing that abortion is harmful to women and indeed bad for society. What may be a horrible situation now (pregnant by rape) may be a blessing in disguise 20 years later. Or in other words, time heals all wounds, and the child no matter how conceived is innocent. In the event the mother (or her husband) cannot handle living with the child, adoption is the only alternative. Murder of an innocent child is never morally acceptable.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.